1994 (8) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... im that no interest under s. 215 was payable. It is to be noted here that that impugned order was passed with a view to give effect to the order of the Tribunal directing that chargeability of interest under s. 215 is to be determined after allowing credit for tax deductible at source for the purpose of quantifying the "assessed tax" in terms of sub-s. (5) of s. 215 of the Act. 3. The learned Asstt. CIT held that it is the amount of tax deducted at source and not tax deductible at source which is to be taken into consideration while computing the "assessed tax". 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) relying upon the case of M/s. Berar Investments Pvt. Ltd. (IVL), an assessee belonging to the group to which the assessee in the instant case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee should be followed. In any case, it was submitted that the decision of the Madras High Court had been followed by the Benches of the Tribunal consistently and no departure from that view should be made. It was also submitted that the tax effect in the present case would be very small even if the decision of the Calcutta High Court was followed. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on records. We find that there is conflict between Madras High Court and the Calcutta High Court on the point under consideration. In the case of Madras Fertilizers Ltd. the Hon'ble Madras High Court has deserved as follows: "This section provides that when the advance tax paid is less than seventy five per cent of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee long before the final assessment and at that stage, there is no question of actual deduction of the tax at source in respect of the interest income and the deduction at source takes place practically at the end of the year when the interest is paid and it is for this reason that the statute in sub-s. (5) of s. 215 of the Act uses the expression "deductible" instead of "deducted". Therefore, in construing sub-s. (5) it is not possible to understand the expression "deductible" occurring therein as "deducted". 8. It is no doubt true that the Calcutta High Court has taken a different view in the case of Borhat Tea Co. Ltd. However, in the said decision no reference had been made to the decision of the Madras High Court referred to above .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X